12/05/2018

Climate Activists Are Lousy Salesmen

From turgid battle cries to hypocritical spokesmen, it’s no wonder they turn so many Americans off.

Illustration:
Phil Foster

Politicians, bureaucrats, activists, scientists and the media have
warned Americans for decades that the Earth is headed toward climate
catastrophe.
Yet surveys consistently show that less than half of U.S.
adults are “deeply concerned” or “very worried” about climate issues.
If, as Leonardo DiCaprio insists, climate change is the “most urgent
threat facing our entire species,” why do a large percentage of
Americans not share his fear? Climate crusaders tend to lay fault with
nonbelievers’ intransigence.
But this is its own form of denial and
masks the real reason: poor salesmanship.
The promotional efforts of the climate catastrophists have
lacked clarity, credibility, and empathy. These are the cornerstones of
effective persuasion.
Successful advocacy campaigns use lucid names to
frame and sell their issues—“living wage,” “welfare queen” or “death
tax.” Climate can be confounding; it is long-term weather, but
environmentalists chide anyone who dares call it that.
Since Earth’s
climate is always fluctuating, the word “change” muddles it with
redundancy. Swapping between “climate change” and “global warming”
confuses the public.
A good battle cry can rally the troops, but
the Paris Agreement’s aim is “to strengthen the global response to the
threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this
century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to
pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5
degrees Celsius.”
That is a far cry from “Remember the Alamo!” And
Americans are always turned off by the use of metric units. In the U.S.,
Toyota wisely markets the 2018 Prius’s fuel economy as 52 miles a
gallon, not 22 kilometers a liter.
American TV audiences bought Carl Sagan’s explanations of how the universe works because of his obvious
scientific expertise. Bold statements about complex systems are always
more plausible when they are made by people with impeccable credentials.
As a Harvard sophomore, Al Gore received a D in a natural=sciences course. Mr. DiCaprio dropped
out of high school in 11th grade.
The rank hypocrisy of many of
the environmental movement’s superstars also alienates potential
followers. Messrs. Gore and DiCaprio lead lavish, jet-setting lives. It
is hard to heed Tom Steyer’s demand to ban offshore oil and gas drilling when Farallon, his
hedge fund, invested hundreds of millions of dollars in coal mining.
Climate change activists tend to be aggressive advocates, but
over-the-top selling doesn’t sway people who are undecided. This is as
true for political surrogates attributing society’s ills to the other
party’s candidate as it is for green activists linking all manner of
extreme weather to climate change.
Scientific impropriety has
triggered a popular backlash against the climate change activists.
The
hockey stick chart, Climategate and questions about the integrity of
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate data have all
fueled public suspicion. Only 39% of Americans believe climate
scientists can be trusted a lot to give full and accurate information on
causes of climate change according to Pew.
Failed forecasts
diminish believability. A Wall Street firm with multiple wrong market
calls would lose clients. The actual rate of warming has come in below
what climate models projected, casting doubt on future calculations.
Likewise, claims that anyone can precisely estimate what global average
temperatures will be decades from now don’t pass muster with the average
person. There are currently no betting odds for Super Bowl CX in 2076
or S&P 500 futures with December 2099 expiration dates.
The
burden of proof in the climate debate lies with those claiming rising
temperatures stem primarily from human activity and not other factors.
While the prosecution may feel it has a winning case, the jury’s verdict
is what counts.
Labeling dissenting jurors “deniers”—an insidious
association with Holocaust denial—is a losing courtroom strategy. Most
people are naturally disinclined to obsess daily about a phenomenon that
started long before they were born and won’t reach fruition until long
after they die.
It’s true that almost all climate scientists
believe human-caused global warming is real. Similarly, American adults
understand that expert opinions can change or turn out to be
spectacularly wrong. Think of the recently overturned consensus on the
link between egg consumption and coronary heart disease, or the reports
during the 1970s that a new ice age was imminent.
Against this backdrop,
calling skeptics “anti-science” is counterproductive, especially since
skepticism is the essence of the scientific method.
From
2006 to 2016, China increased its annual carbon dioxide emissions 37%
while America’s yearly output decreased far more than any other country.
In the Paris Agreement, China pledged to begin reducing emissions
around 2030, meaning it can spew even more greenhouse gas for years to
come. The U.S. vowed to reduce its 2025 emissions by 28% from 2005
levels.
Yet questioning if the accord is fair to America or will
forestall global warming is reliably met with sanctimonious scorn.
My
advice to the activists is this: you will attract more supporters to
your cause if you can pick a name and stick with it, create a clear call
to action, enlist a convincing spokesman with a small carbon footprint,
tone down the alarmism, and fix the computer models.
Most important,
listen to the doubters, don’t lambaste them.

*Stewart Easterby has worked as a sales executive for three publicly traded technology companies.Links